Why do people seem to prefer Fallout New vegas to fallout 3.

[arcane20]

In late 2006 games were being developed to use DirectX10 features in their gameplay. Here we have a game released in 2010 and it's still based on an outdated gamebyro version with no PhysX or DirectX10 support. Majority of armours and weapons are based off fallout 3 original armours. The game is smaller in both quest lengths *and* wasteland size. Even though it's called new vegas and essentially New vegas is the main place in the whole game it's not even half the size of the washington DC ruins. The main features it added were taken directly from fallout 3 mods: WMK, primary needs is there anything else it adds? Ohh yes an annoying companion interface just to reduce realism >.> thanks for that. Now don't get me wrong, I still had fun playing it despite the handstanding scorpions and the mesh to infinity bugs. But I just don't see fallout New vegas as a replacement to fallout 3 it's just far too inferior and adds nothing in terms of graphics and gameplay that can't/ haven't already been modded into fallout 3. What are your opinions? If you prefer New vegas could you give some details.

[Herculine]

Agreed.

The entire time I was playing Fallout New Vegas I felt I was playing a Fallout 3 expansion DLC.

[greywaste]

I prefer the perks and gameplay changes in New Vegas, but as for location and actual playthroughs Fallout 3 wins for me

[marharth]

I like the gameplay better.

 

I see new vegas as a expansion as well, that's probably why they didn't call it fallout 4 and had someone else develop it..

 

That being said, its not a bad thing and I like new vegas a lot. After you finish fallout 3 completely its good to move onto new vegas.

[billyro]

I like New Vegas more than 3 just because I prefer western styled games to futuristic.

[Akon2009]

I absolutely agree that the graphics and the gameplay have not been upgraded that much. However you all have forgot the communities in NV, and I am not even talking about the reputation system which is a great improvement.

What I am trying to say is that at the end of FO3 you changed the wasteland. You made it easier for small towns such as Megaton and Rivet city to grow both economically and technologically. Even the poorest town in Nevada is far better of than the most of the DC settlements.

I believe that Bethesda focused on portraying what primitive settlements may grow into, asking the player a philosophical question: are "civilized" cities better and if not, what should the player do about it?

 

The quests has grown shorter yes but there are still 10+ of them at each middle-sized settlement and they are no longer a wham-bam-thank you-ma'm, they bear significances in how all of the factions react towards you and affects the fate of the Mojave. Yes there has been a mod that makes faction clothing for FO3 but that's it, everything else about factions is new and there was only one main storyline where as NV has 4 major outcomes. Not only that but minor factions are also at the mercy of the player.

 

I think I have said everything I wanted to, oh right one more thing, I liked FO3 GOTY more but it was broken steel that made me really love the game, I'm not gonna spoil but for those of you who know broken steel changed the game far more than any DLC and if there were to be a NV broken steel then it would be legendary!

[Jupitus]

New Vegas did have improved gameplay IMO but as far as everthing else especially the gameworld I prefer FO3.

[ita]

Fallout 3 had sub-par writing, zero replayability, a bunch of uninspired DLCs and suffered from the post-2006 Bethesda philosophy of treating the player like an idiot and showering him/her with gadgets that give significant permanent skill/stat bonuses.

 

New Vegas offers infinitely more interesting characters (especially the companions), factions, a proper wasteland setting, no copypasted subway stations and DLCs that are actually worth getting.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

^

Even over the top characters like Benny are believable within the context of their world. The only believable characters in FO3 are ones that are mentioned in notes and never show up in game.

It is not the perfect sequel, but NV is a much more deserving continuation of the fallout series and is the true FO3 in my opinion.

[TrooperScooperMKII]

Yes, I like the story better here than in FO3, especially with the DLC. Dead Money was excellent in that regard- I empathized more with Dean-Vera-Sincalir than I did about the entire Capital Wasteland.

The gameplay is another plus- the repair mechanics in Fallout 3 were oppressively brutal and made my inner perfectionist cringe whenever I got a unique weapon/armor piece... i ended up just hoarding it all in fear of having it break or maintain "sub-optimal" performance. Then there are the weapon mods, the hardcore mode tweaks, crafting, etc.

I know that Fallout 3 mods had a lot of this stuff, but it's better to have it in the core game- juggling all the varying mods is brutal enough without adding features like that into the mix.